D.N. Patel, J.

1. The present interlocutory application has been preferred by the appellant under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of sentence awarded by the Sessions Judge, Lohardaga in S.T. No. 55 of 2003 whereby this appellant has been convicted mainly for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and punished for life imprisonment.

2. We have heard the counsels for both sides and perused the evidences on record. As the criminal appeal is pending, we are not much analyzing the evidence on record, but, suffice it to say that looking to the evidence of prosecution witnesses, it appears that this appellant was present at the scene of occurrence as on 29.03.2001 during late night hours. In this case murder of wife of original accused no.1 Devendra Sahu has taken place in the house of Devendra Sahu. This appellant was sitting with accused no.1 Devendra Sahu. There were illicit relation between the original accused no.1 and this appellant, as per the prosecution case.

3. Looking to the evidence on record of PW3 and other witnesses, they have prima facie established the date of occurrence, the place of occurrence, the manner in which the whole incident of murder has taken place in the house of original accused no.1 and the presence of this appellant at the scene of occurrence. PW3 has also stated that this appellant had also beaten the deceased. Moreover, looking to the medical evidence given by PW12, there were five injuries upon the body of deceased as per Exhibit4 which is the post mortem report. PW13 is the Investigating Officer who has also given a detail evidence which is corroborative to the depositions of other prosecution witnesses. Blood stained earth was also found from the house of Devendra Sahu who is husband of the deceased. At night hours when the murder has taken place, presence of this appellant Kalawati Devi was also there. Unless there is mens rea, her presence could not have been there in the house of somebody else. Dead body was also recovered from the house of Devendra Sahu with whom this appellant was having illicit relation, as per the prosecution case. This appellant was also absconding after the offence was registered on 30.03.2001. Looking to the evidence on record of prosecution witnesses specially of PW3 who is daughter of the deceased and other evidences on record including of PW12, PW13, there is a prima facie case against this appellant accused. Moreover, previously also the prayer for suspension of sentence was rejected by this Court by a detail speaking order dated 17th January, 2013 and there is no change in the circumstances whatsoever except efflux of time.

4. The basis of suspension of sentence has been enumerated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following decisions:

(i) It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Khilari v. State of U.P. and another reported in AIR 2008 S.C. 1882 especially in paragraph 10, which reads as under:

“10. In Anwari Begum v. Sher Mohammad and Anr. [2005 (7) S.C.C. 326] it was, inter alia, observed as follows:

“7. Even on a cursory perusal the High Court’s order shows complete non-application of mind. Though detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case is to be avoided by the Court while passing orders on bail applications, yet a court dealing with the bail application should be satisfied as to whether there is a prima facie case, but exhaustive exploration of the merits of the case is not necessary. The court dealing with the application for bail is required to exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a mater of course.

8. There is a need to indicate in the order, reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where an accused was charged of having committed a serious offence. It is necessary for the courts dealing with application for bail to consider among other circumstances, the